Democrats won control of the Wisconsin State Legislature in the Nov. 3 election, ending Republican control that began in 2011. In Pennsylvania, Democrats won control of both chambers, ending divided legislative control that began in 2023.
Those changes could also affect which constitutional amendments reach voters. In both states, lawmakers must typically approve an amendment twice, with a legislative election between the votes, before placing it on the ballot.
Wisconsin’s incoming legislature will decide whether to advance an amendment approved before the election. Both states will also consider new proposals. To place new amendments on the ballot, Democrats would need to retain control after the 2028 election or secure Republican support for the second vote.
Wisconsin: A pending Republican-passed constitutional amendment
The incoming Democratic-controlled Wisconsin State Legislature will decide whether to advance a constitutional amendment that Republicans approved earlier this year. The constitutional amendment would grant the legislature the authority to suspend any rule or part of a rule established by state executive agencies, either indefinitely or for specified periods of time.
Both chambers approved the amendment in February, with all voting Republicans in favor and all voting Democrats opposed. The newly elected legislature must approve it a second time before it can appear on the ballot in 2027 or 2028.
Historically, most amendments awaiting a second session vote have failed to advance after a change in legislative party control. From 2010 to 2026, when legislative party control changed between sessions, 17 of 21 constitutional amendments (81%) approved in the first session failed in the second session. The remaining four (19%) passed and were certified for the ballot.
Amendments that advanced after a change in legislative control generally received bipartisan support in the first vote. The most recent example was a 2024 Virginia amendment on property tax exemptions for veterans and surviving spouses. It passed first under divided legislative control and again under Democratic control, with unanimous support in both votes.
Wisconsin saw a similar shift before, with the parties reversed. Democrats approved three constitutional amendments while they controlled the legislature in 2010. Republicans took control in 2011, and none of the three amendments received a floor vote, meaning none went to voters.
Gov.-elect David Crowley (D) also said, "I am making a commitment that as governor I will work with the Legislature to put a constitutional amendment that explicitly protects reproductive freedom in the state of Wisconsin." To place the amendment on the ballot, lawmakers would need to approve it during the 2027-2028 session and again during the 2029-2030 session. Democrats would need to retain control after the 2028 election or secure Republican support for the second vote. The earliest regularly scheduled election at which voters could decide the amendment would be April 3, 2029.
Pennsylvania: No pending amendments, but Democrats proposing new ones
Pennsylvania has also seen amendments stall after a change in legislative control. In 2021-2022, Republican majorities in both chambers approved six proposed constitutional amendments, including proposals on abortion, voter ID, and administrative regulations. Democrats won the House in 2022, dividing control of the legislature. None of the six passed both chambers in 2023-2024.
No amendments passed both chambers during the most recent session (2025-2026), either, so lawmakers will need to start the two-session process for any new proposals.
Like Wisconsin's Gov.-elect Crowley, Pennsylvania's incumbent Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) said, "The people of Pennsylvania... want us to enshrine abortion rights for women in the Constitution." And on Nov. 5, state Rep. Danielle Friel Otten (D-155) introduced a constitutional amendment that would add to the state constitution’s Declaration of Rights: “Every individual has the fundamental right to exercise personal reproductive liberty and make and effectuate decisions regarding the individual's own reproduction,” including the ability to prevent, continue, or end a pregnancy.
An amendment first approved in the 2027-2028 session could reach the ballot as early as the May 15, 2029, primary, if the legislature elected in 2028 approves it again in time to meet the state’s passage and advertising deadlines.
Democrats would need to retain control of both chambers in the 2028 elections to pass an amendment without Republican support. If either chamber changes hands, passage would require votes from both parties. Pennsylvania also allows emergency amendments to pass in one session if the legislature finds that a major emergency threatens or is about to threaten the state. This process requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber, so Democrats would need Republican support. The emergency process was last used to refer an amendment to voters in 1977, for disaster relief following flooding.
Amendments in two-session states that did not change party control
Nine states require lawmakers to approve constitutional amendments in two successive legislative sessions before sending them to voters: Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Four others—Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania—have a two-session process but also allow amendments to advance in one session under certain conditions. Most of the states (36 of 49) require legislatures to approve the amendments during one legislative session. Delaware is the exception, with the legislature voting on constitutional amendments but not requiring voter approval.
Besides Wisconsin, lawmakers in Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, and New York have approved six proposed amendments once. Legislative party control did not change in those four states. If lawmakers approve the amendments again, they could reach voters in 2027 or 2028, depending on states' election timing rules.
- Indiana (2028): Change the constitutional title of the auditor of state to state comptroller. The proposal received near-unanimous support, with two Democrats voting "No."
- Iowa (2028): Allow state law to limit a criminal defendant’s right to confront certain witnesses, including witnesses under age 18. The amendment received unanimous support in the state Senate, and from most Republicans (60 of 63) and most Democrats (27 of 30) in the House.
- Nevada (2028): Authorize the legislature to establish a business court. A separate amendment would require mail ballots to be distributed to eligible voters. While the business court amendment received support from at least 90% of legislative Democrats and Republicans, the mail-ballot amendment was along party lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing.
- New York (2027): Require local and judicial elections to be held in even-numbered years. A separate amendment would change the state’s congressional redistricting process. The amendment to move election dates received support from 92% of Democrats and no Republicans. The redistricting amendment received support from 96% of Democrats and no Republicans.
Control changes in one-session states
Four states that allow lawmakers to refer constitutional amendments to voters in one session moved to Democratic legislative control: Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. Michigan previously had divided control, Arizona and New Hampshire had Republican control, and Minnesota had a tied House and Democratic Senate. Georgia and Texas shifted from Republican to divided control, as would North Carolina if Republicans retain the Senate.
Arizona and Minnesota require a simple majority in each chamber to place an amendment on the ballot, allowing Democrats to act without Republican support or a second approval after the 2028 elections. Michigan requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber, and New Hampshire requires three-fifths, so Democrats would need those supermajorities or Republican support.
In Arizona, Democrats won both chambers for the first time since 1966, giving them the power to refer constitutional amendments on party-line votes after a 60-year gap.
Additional reading: